French députés' offices will be equipped with a Linux operating system and open source productivity software. There will be 1154 French parliamentary workstations running on an open source OS, with OpenOffice.org, Firefox and an open source email client.

These migrations of a few hundred/thousand workstations have been making news for years. Many of them end up using Linux but still running their windows applications through some sort of virtualization.

Munich, one of the largest yet announced their ~45 million dollar 14,000 PC migration back in ~2002 and with any luck they should have about 500 machines on Linux by the end of this year.

Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

>>>Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

>>It's hard for those hundreds of thousands of individuals and small companies installing Linux to make the news.

>Really? Why is that? And why do we keep hearing about it if it's so hard?

Err... OK, if you equate say Nettie Johnson from say Provo, Utah reporting, on some forum or blog, her almost-perfect-but-what-is-this-ndiswrapper-thing Ubuntu installation with "making the news", then I guess you're right.

Munich, one of the largest yet announced their ~45 million dollar 14,000 PC migration back in ~2002 and with any luck they should have about 500 machines on Linux by the end of this year.

Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

Let's keep it in perspective though. The actual deployment only began in September and is scheduled to roll out through 2009.

The decision in Munich wasn't a kneejerk reaction based in anti-MS sentiments, and it wasn't all about eliminating license fees. The objective was to remove long-term dependencies on proprietary software, and the city went through a proper consultative and analysis stage before making any decisions. This included studies of the software used, the viability of open source replacements, useability, resource requirements etc. IBM and Novell/Suse were both involved in this stage, providing expert guidance on the integration of linux and OSS applications in enterprise network environments.

This was followed by a testing phase. In addition, decisions were made on software and they opted to roll their own distro. A service was designed to facilitate imaging, management and application deployment to simplify the rollout and ongoing maintenance.

In short, Munich did their due diligence. Organizations with large infrastructures cannot make whimsical decisions concerning platform migrations etc., these things need to be studied, considered and re-studied to the nth-degree the determine impact across all areas of the business (or government in this case). Large companies will go through a similar process just determining how to approach upgrading from NT to XP, or XP to Vista.

The process in Munich was also sidelined for a period during the whole software patent issue, until the government was confident that their use of linux and other OSS applications would not be impacted.

Linux deployments need to be looked at realistically, perhaps smaller organizations can shorten that period of time and start migrating but larger organizations don't have that luxury. There is a considerable amount of analysis, preparation, training and testing that needs to be done.

Munich should be a blueprint for other organizations, particularly at the public level, in managing their own studies. In fact, much of the groundwork that was done for Munich can benefit other organizations or institutions considering a similar migration.

I've never believed linux will be a wholesale replacement for Windows in enterprises, but I've always maintained that when viewed with an objective set of standards, linux is surprisingly adaptable and suitable for a variety of deployments. I'd rather see strong successes that proceed at a glacial pace than fast "look at me!" type headline-grabbing deployments that ultimately fail due to lack of understanding and preparation.

The fact that Munich as made it this far and has begun actual deployment is a significant success, in my view anyways.

You forgot the fact that from long term they went with FAR FAR cheaper deal.

Well, that depends entirely on who you choose to believe. If you go with IBM and Novell's estimates, they claim that it's "cheaper" over the long term -- but that depends on how far you're willing to go to stretch "long term". But, consider the fact that the operating costs of using Linux are more expensive and aren't likely to decrease. And, since the cost of a software license is less than 2% of the overall TCO, Munich is largely depending on potentially vaporous estimates from IBM and Novell (who provided at-cost consulting to pull the deal through). If IBM and Novell hadn't provided this consulting at-cost (which they WON'T do except in the few high-profile deployments such as Munich), the costs would have been much higher. And let's not forget that they've already had several time-cost overruns.

Well, that depends entirely on who you choose to believe. If you go with IBM and Novell's estimates, they claim that it's "cheaper" over the long term -- but that depends on how far you're willing to go to stretch "long term". But, consider the fact that the operating costs of using Linux are more expensive and aren't likely to decrease. And, since the cost of a software license is less than 2% of the overall TCO, Munich is largely depending on potentially vaporous estimates from IBM and Novell (who provided at-cost consulting to pull the deal through). If IBM and Novell hadn't provided this consulting at-cost (which they WON'T do except in the few high-profile deployments such as Munich), the costs would have been much higher. And let's not forget that they've already had several time-cost overruns.

only 80% of the desktops can be moved to Linux. 20% will stay with Windows XP to run applications like AutoCAD.

Hmmm. An organization with 14,000 desktops decides to do a full scale analysis of their infrastructure, business requirements, organizational objectives and future needs assessment. They discover that out of those 14,000 desktops, only 2,800 of them actually *require* a rich-client OS like Windows for mission-specific applications. Interesting.

That will cause extra costs to run two OS infrastrutures.

Maybe. But then based on the fact that Windows is only required on 20% of the desktops, this implies that Windows and a Windows-based software stack are possibly being used unnecessarily on the remaining 11,200 desktops.

So then the smart thing to do is look at the licensing costs of the software for those 11,200 desktops compared to alternatives, whether free in cost or not. In addition, we need to compare the expense of the necessary Microsoft server infrastructure and management utilities incremental to those additional clients.

The LiMux distribution they are using for those 11,200 clients is free. As is the core software running on it. In addition, these clients will connect to linux-based servers that do not require client licenses at additional cost. They will be centrally managed by an OSS-based application that does not require incremental client fees. None of the software involved in the core stack will require annuity software maintenance fees. So that's something to start with.

It's possible that even with the non-existent license costs of their chosen client and the necessary support infrastructure to support 11,200 desktops alongside the 2,800 platforms they are locked into, it could still be cheaper to simply purchase the necessary licenses, CLA's, servers etc. Or it might not be.

Of course license cost is only a small part of the equation. As are annuity fees for maintenance contracts etc. I guess it boils down to whether linux can be deployed and managed at a cost equivalent to or less than a Microsoft solution.

I suspect that maybe it can, depending upon requirement. After all, I've been using it daily for a good couple of years now. No games, no high-end multimedia editing, I don't need that for work. Just good old fashioned document processing, email, web, connecting to MS shares on our corporate network, citrix, that sort of thing. Believe it or not, I installed it and it just works. I don't even have to recompile my kernel every week or write my own software patches or execute a cryptic array of CLI commands every time I plug a thumb drive in. I know, shocking.

So it's entirely possible that, looked at *objectively* (sorry, I'm not intentionally trying to use terms that are over your head, here's a link that should help explain that term: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/objectivity), a properly managed and deployed linux desktop could be useable for Joe Average whether in the civil service or simply doing admin work at your average enterprise. I know that in my own company, our IT department doesn't force employees to install their own OS or software, doesn't expect them to edit the registry or download applications or access online forums for support in order to get their desktops working. I can only assume other organizations are similar, and that IT departments would not expect users to install or configure linux for themselves. Maybe I'm crazy.

Of course, neither my opinion or yours really matters. Opinions have no place without some degree of empirical data to back them up. I would certainly hope that before the City of Munich would commit to this, they would perform studies and tests coupled with a proper cost-benefit analysis weighed against their objectives and requirements before making any decisions, the same way any smart well-run organization would operate.

Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot. They did that, didn't they?

Linux is expensive.

So is Microsoft. So are Porsches. So is universal health care.

Concepts of cost and expense are relative. You keep harping on the fact that Munich should have just rolled over and accepted the discounted licenses to save that money.

But they stated right from the beginning that their objectives were not short-term cost reduction, it was long-term. Long-term cost-reduction often entails short-term expense, and vice versa.

So the easy decision would have been to cave in, accept Microsoft's deal, and let it become somebody else's problem down the road when licenses were again up for renewal, or Microsoft wasn't feeling as generous, decided to change their support plans etc. But again, short term budget savings were not the objective here.

There were considerable costs involved. Much of it entails consulting, migration and training. In fact, training is half of the budget and they're already saying based on the initial testing and rollouts that training will not be as big a concern or obstacle as initially projected, based on the test systems and initial deployment.

Your argument about it being more expensive is simply in comparison to Microsoft's license fees. But the costs Munich are carrying amounts effectively to a one-time investment. Once the deployment is completed and the training and support infrastructure is in place, the costs for ongoing maintenance and expansion will be considerably reduced. THAT was the whole objective. It will take some time, and it will take some money, but they have planned for that and their projected returns center around that. That's how business decisions are made.

The same cannot necessarily be said for a Microsoft-centric strategy since they will simply expect to be paid on demand, even more so the further entrenched they get in the network. Hell, this whole exercise could have been unworkable if Windows was maybe required on 30% or 40% of the desktops instead of only 20%. Fortunately for them Windows is terribly underutilized and not really necessary in the vast majority of their desktops.

Change is never the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't justify resisting it at all cost.

Munich is great lesson for business.

So let's close where we began. I agree with you, I think that Munich will be a great lesson for businesses. It will provide a template and a methodology for organizations considering a similar move. Doesn't mean that it's the right move for everyone, I've never said that or believed it myself, but their success will certainly lower the bar a bit more for others that are sure to follow. Good stuff.

Maybe. But then based on the fact that Windows is only required on 20% of the desktops, this implies that Windows and a Windows-based software stack are possibly being used unnecessarily on the remaining 11,200 desktops.

I think the lessons are simple.

There are no open source replacement for Windows power users.

If you want to spend 50% more than Windows, you could replace Windows for purely ideological and parochial reasons (SUSE is from Munich).

If you want to spend a fortune on training you can throw away a perfectly good desktop infrastructure and replace with something that someday may work as well as the one you have now (which is Windows NT actually).

Linux - capable of sort of duplicating Windows NT.

Not a great endorsement.

In practice the migration will be an expensive disaster that will be cancelled within a year or so before 10 - 20% of the desktops are replaced.

But the costs Munich are carrying amounts effectively to a one-time investment.

That is false. Support costs for Linux are high.

Most of the Microsoft software can be used for 5 - 7 years (the same way Windows NT has lasted Munich for 7 - 9 years).

The Microsoft software licenses themselves are considerably cheaper than the 12 million lost to the Linux project.

It will be something like 21-28 years (if Linux support and upgrade costs were magically zero) to recoup that 12 million.

And Linux costs will not magically become zero.

"Will Linux ever be a major player on the desktop? Andy McCue hears from IT chiefs - who, for the most part, answered with a resounding 'no'.

...

Gavin Whatrup, group IT director at Creston, said: "There has to be a compelling reason to fix something that isn't broken. Whilst Windows on the desktop has its faults it is stable, useable, manageable and cash costs are low. I don't see Linux replacing Windows on the office desktop unless it can challenge those issues and offer something Windows can't.""

NotParker, what do you do for a living? I still disagree with you an many points but you seem to have a inexhaustible amount of information at your disposal. I honestly do not care enough about any of this to have researched Munich enough to provide the myriad of crud you have.

You seem to think it a foregone conclusion Munich will fail. I sincerely hope you are wrong, I am not aware of any successful large scale roll outs of Linux to the desktop to date. The Munich project seems well thought out from a deployment standpoint with maintenance taken into account. Time will tell I guess.

On a side note, why does everyone use Photoshop as the example of a program that does not run on Linux? I agree Gimp is not a substitute for Photoshop, but I think there are viable alternatives on Linux for non graphics designers. Really, what percentage of your average desktop user uses Photoshop? Word, Outlook (in businesses), Excel too, but Photoshop?

NotParker is probably a MS astroturfer. I hope he is, for his own sake.

NotParker, MS is a virtual monopoly. Jackson's ruling might have been overturned, but that doesn't mean that MS is not a monopoly.

It's funny how on one hand you say that Linux' market share is less than 1% (for which you have no real proof outside dubious net statistics), while on the other hand you argue that MS is not a monopoly. Hint: when you have more than 90% of a market, you *are* a monopoly in the common sense of the word.

Contradicting yourself in such a blantant is another reason why you're a troll.

The first guys comment was decently worded, the second had "lol" printed in all caps. Why do you think he got voted down?

If you're going to make snyde remarks you have to do it with some diction, otherwise people notice it. Notice that my, actually insulting, comment about the French Revolution, in reply, did not get voted down.

Like closing shops during the day or all their "ridiculous" protesting - we could really learn something from them here in Germany - but then we just dont care enough & just want our peace - which also isn't bad .

But a tendency away from MS towards OpenSource freedom might just be something fitting into the French mentality .

Good to hear that more and more people are choosing open source on basis of its merits.

We have come at the point where people look with a critical eye at both Windows and Linux and see the strengths and weaknesses in both; and make a decision based on solid arguments. I expect more and more people will choose Linux.

Not because it is necessarily so much superior to Windows, but because the balance of the Windows installed base does not reflect the difference in quality between the two operating systems. Thus, it is only logical that the Windows installed base will erode. Just *how much* it will erode is something that still remains to be seen.

As an added bonus, malware will have a harder time spreading because of more OS diversion. Which in the end benefits all of us.

Interesting tidbit: I have seen a PC maker that used some kind of embedded Linux in order to be able to offer a display on their PC's that is always on and that has playback buttons and a screen that shows song/movie/... information. So you can always access your media playback, even if your computer is switched off (well, not fully 'off' of course...).

They even put their improvements, under the GPL, in an easy-to-find location on their webserver. For this kind of added value Linux is just about perfect.

From a selfish point of view, I have enjoyed many years of using GNU/Linux without the hassle and fear of malware. My worry is that if GNU/Linux becomes increasingly popular on the desktop, then we can expect to see more malware targeted at GNU/Linux. After all, nothing is perfect.

I totally agree. I'm on Linux _only_ for several years now, but personally, I don't want Linux to replace Windows - I'd be happy if "we" had a market share big enough to get recognized by hardware vendors and some software companies, but a market share small enough for Linux to remain "ours". Well I hope you know what I mean. Linux should just be one respected OS amongst others (Windows, Mac OS, BSD etc.). It should just be well balanced amongst those systems (and hopefully Windows will die out sometimes in the nar future, so we have only UNIX-like OSes left, which makes all the OSes heterogenous but still compatible at the same time ;-) )

Hopefully the design of the Linux system will make it harder for malware authors to get their wares to work. I think the ubiquity of Windows has given people the mistaken impression that all platforms are equally susceptible. Fortunately, that's not true.

I guess we will revisit that once Linux gains enough market share to either prove or disprove this theory. My vote is disprove.

Do you think that linux will only run open-source software if/when it becomes big? I'm pretty sure that when a lot of people start using it, there will be a huge market for commercial software and this market will include malware.

1) That is easy to understand, so that users can actively keep their systems secure. Security is the last thing you want to automate.

2) It should be strictly imposed on all user applications. No exceptions, no excuse.

These two requirements are much better met in Unix-like sytems than in Windows.

And, if the OS is a Free/Open Source one such as GNU/Linux, you get a huge bonus: Lots of FOSS applications in centralised repositories, which are inherently safer than proprietary, closed-source applications scattered throughout the internet.

The key to security, I think, is never needing antiviruses and other pattern-oriented, attacker-centered applications. Once you need them, you are lost. It's a bit like fighting a rat infestation by chasing rats with a stick: It's much better to keep the house clean and the food locked, so that rats have nothing to eat.

I think it's an important step, especially in politics. Now they're questioning what they use. Just to mention security risks, on Linux systems you can exactly control what program does what. You have the complete source code and may even build the system by your own. With "Windows" you can't.

"[...] and make a decision based on solid arguments. I expect more and more people will choose Linux."

That's the point. Decisions should be made by people who have the knowledge needed to decide. And the decision should be lead by facts, not by fanboyism or religious-like behaviour.

"As an added bonus, malware will have a harder time spreading because of more OS diversion. Which in the end benefits all of us."

I think so too.

In Germany, complete PC networks of famous banks (Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank) and of the mail authority (Deutsche Post) have been infected and abused for spamming actions. So I got an information to go to a webpage and enter my PIN - I don't even have an acoount there! :-)

I'd like to see industry and administrations follow. Most illegal stuff is done using company networks. If they request more security and better knowledge about the systems they're using, PC vendors would benefit on putting some Linux on their machines.

"Interesting tidbit: I have seen a PC maker that used some kind of embedded Linux in order to be able to offer a display on their PC's that is always on and that has playback buttons and a screen that shows song/movie/... information. So you can always access your media playback, even if your computer is switched off (well, not fully 'off' of course...)."

Reminds me to status displays and system consoles on the SGI racks where you could see processor loads and memory usage... :-)

Lets hope this is again not a means to make MS slash prices and offer discounts.

Now Linux has matured so much that for general desktop usages its simply perfect. I just hope they take a decent distribution.
I hope they might go with Mandriva ( its French, isn't it ?).
At the same time its immeterial which Linux they choose, what matters is that their choice should be lasting.

"From a selfish point of view, I have enjoyed many years of using GNU/Linux without the hassle and fear of malware. My worry is that if GNU/Linux becomes increasingly popular on the desktop, then we can expect to see more malware targeted at GNU/Linux. After all, nothing is perfect."

Well, maybe Mac OSX will increase too. And of course, there's still Windows.

"linux don't need a lot ram, you can run a light windows manager like icewm with 16meg of ram "

In your imagination of RAM usage you thought that the problem would be the GNU part of Linux(KDE/GNOME/..), whereas the problem truly is from the applications that you will run on linux.

Linux applications tend to take more RAM than windows counterpart, even for the same application written by the same software developers.

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space, you can easily notice this on gnome-system-monitor in case of GNOME or ksysguard in case of KDE. I am currently running 4 applications on CentOS on 1GB RAM and 15% of swap space is already used, leaving performance of the system to hell. Solution will be to install more RAM.

Linux applications tend to take more RAM than windows counterpart, even for the same application written by the same software developers.

This is an outright lie. Most actually take much less RAM because in linux 90% of the code is shared with PIC-ed .so files, while in windows, most app take all their libraries with them. What you measure is probably all the memory each app takes + shared memory, which usually is actually taking most of it, and should be only counted once as one block for all.

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space...

Yes and no. Linux caches because it's much more effective than what windows does. And no it won't affect swapping because if linux needs more memory it takes it from the cached part which are oldest (afaik, I don't know the choice algorithm).

Actually this is what makes linux SO much more effective than windows. Running even big stuff 2x is what I call "silent" (no disk activity), unlike in windows.

All in all you said all lies.

BTW. I'm running about 5 big apps right now, my usage is 26% of 1GB, and I never saw swap being used. Perhaps CentOS is kind of broken? Even with big stuff like compilation/linking and image processing I never got swap active. Even with big late games like doom or nwn. Can't say so for windows tho. It's swapping like hell all the time.

"Most actually take much less RAM because in linux 90% of the code is shared with PIC-ed .so files, "

OK in linux most of shared libraries that you must install for a given application will never be used for another application; so to install 10 applications you will need to install 100 shared libraries that almost all will never be shared because there is no app other than that you installed will use it!

And by the way dependancy hell in windows is unnoticable to customers, but in linux dependacies are deterrent to the platform, and need to be addressed soon.

"Perhaps CentOS is kind of broken?"
Never, it's Redhat Enterprise Linux without redhat logos, besides these horrible things will show up even more with some other weak distros.

"Even with big stuff like compilation/linking and image processing I never got swap active."

Compilation or image processing are CPU intensive tasks not memory intensive tasks Mr Genius. You have to try P2P networking with Gigabytes of files sharable or better try java based applications like Azureus and see the results, or open 20 tabs on firefox with heavy graphics and flash aniamtions; add to that a movie that you would like to watch with xine based player.

1) You just say non sense, and you have no idea about how memory management works, if I have 16G of ram, I would be happy if my OS uses all of that, otherwise it would be a waste.

2) You are talking about shared libraries, but again you really have no idea what it means, shared libraries are SHARED. Prove your saying before saying nonsense again.

3) Here again, you still didn't upgrad eyour brain, and you still think 100% like a msft user, you are using RedHat and/or CentOS not because of their advantages/disatvantages for your but rather because they are the most known distro, just like a msft windows user would prefer to use Photoshop just for scaling or rotating photos.

4) Compilation and Linking can be memory intensive, go take some compilation courses and come back.

OK in linux most of shared libraries that you must install for a given application will never be used for another application; so to install 10 applications you will need to install 100 shared libraries that almost all will never be shared because there is no app other than that you installed will use it!

Wrong. From libc and stuff like openSSL to gtk and qt, all are pretty well used by many apps. Only few fringe libs aren't actualy "shared".

The dll hell argument is partially right, but taking all the shared stuff with each copy of program is stupid. You could just as well go with static linking. Try telling that to security experts wise guy.

Compilation or image processing are CPU intensive tasks not memory intensive tasks Mr Genius. You have to try P2P networking with Gigabytes of files sharable or better try java based applications like Azureus and see the results, or open 20 tabs on firefox with heavy graphics and flash aniamtions; add to that a movie that you would like to watch with xine based player.

Java based applications suck equally well on most platforms. Windows happens to have a bit better java implementation (as can be tested by the fact that many java applets crash here while work in windows) but that's about it. It has nothing to do with linux per-se.

Btw. linking is real ram and cpu killer. Ever tried smart-linking a half-million lines of code thing? Probably not. Suffice to say, I had to kill ld AND X. In windows I'd have to kill windows tho .

Image processing is a RAM killer too. Try doing something on 4000 by 4000 image then we can talk again.

Point is we're comparing apples and oranges.

And thing is, windows IO and memory handling is worse than linux one. I can't prove it, but I can sure feel it every day.

Thats not my experince... last time i had to setup a linux server it needed not only a lot more but double the amount of ram windows needed. It was a fedora core 3. Even without any load on the server it kinda walked insted of running as win2k3 did.

Even Microsoft realizes the everything and a the sink on the server is a bad idea. Look at what they are doing with Longhorn server... between striped down out of the box (no gui) and power shell it's clear the minimal server route with a strong command line is the best way and even microsoft sees this as the case...I think a lot of MCSE's are gonna be in trouble soon...

Hmm... My Windows 2003 Server works as a Desktop OS and it uses pretty much the same amount of RAM as Gnome does. The difference is that in Linux the RAM is used as "swap" and doesn't use the harddisk swap at all, while in Win2K3 it doesn't use RAM that way, but uses as much swap as Linux uses cache. Vista uses the RAM as cache.

It's been a long time ago since I used FC3, so I dare not say if it is particularly memory hungry, but FC3 was the reason why I switched to LFS (and today gentoo).

OK in linux most of shared libraries that you must install for a given application will never be used for another application

Name one !
It's good to see only lies can help you make your point.
Which of libpng, zlib, openssl, nss, ... will never be used by another app ?
How can you even be sure of that, are you psychic ?
I've yet to find one library that you MUST install that is used by one app only.

so to install 10 applications you will need to install 100 shared libraries that almost all will never be shared because there is no app other than that you installed will use it!

You don't even know what a shared library is, do you ?
You never need to install 100 or even 10 shared libraries for one application.
Just show me one of these apps please.
Note well : Everything is compiled from source on my Linux OS, so if what you say was true, I would be the first to know. But to me, it's pretty obvious you're a clueless lier.

And by the way dependancy hell in windows is unnoticable to customers, but in linux dependacies are deterrent to the platform, and need to be addressed soon

Riiiiight. Like when codec packages urge you to desinstall any other, that's because they fear faeries ? Yes, that's the most prominent case of dependancy hell, that can make your video work one day (when you just installed the software without rebooting), and when you reboot Windows, it doesn't work anymore.
It's always clueless people like you that dare say such nonsense.
FYI, Linux library dependancies work extremely well, and are already addressed. The dependancies problems people have are only in the package systems, that try to prevent the user from destroying their system.

Never, it's Redhat Enterprise Linux without redhat logos, besides these horrible things will show up even more with some other weak distros

Yes, CentOS is not broken. As you're clueless, you thought that the fact that swap was taken (15 % here) meant you actually used it every time (referred to as thrashing) and so, you thought your lie that the system was going to a crawl would fly.

It's amazing to be so clueless as you are, really !
Compilation (especially C++ with GCC) and image processing are one of the most memory intensive tasks !
Actually, the kdebindings package compilation (with final options) was one of the only compilation capable of making my main computer go to a crawl, by taking all my memory + swap (1 GB + 2GB).

You have to try P2P networking with Gigabytes of files sharable or better try java based applications like Azureus and see the results

You using memory leak full apps like Azureus doesn't mean Linux apps use lots of memory, that just means they are buggy software.
My wife use (k)mldonkey with gigabytes of files shareable, and we never got a problem.

or open 20 tabs on firefox with heavy graphics and flash aniamtions; add to that a movie that you would like to watch with xine based player

And just the same, I'd never use Firefox on my Linux desktop (except when forced to). We use Galeon or EPiphany with far more tabs combined than you have (but not with heavy graphics and flash anims on each, except for ads), constantly open, and never had any problem launching (k)mplayer.
So please, keep your anecdotical bizarre evidences to yourself, they don't mean anything, especially as to Linux apps memory usage.
If you didn't realise by now that your heavy graphics and flash animations are the memory takers, you're a lost soul.

Some libraries actually get shared quite a bit, examples:
Gtk/QT (obvious, and everyone shares them)
libgcrypt (what do you think is used in all those crypto programs on Linux?)
gtkhtml (could be, but many applications reinvent the wheel here because html isn't the best way to display everything that's pretty)
kdelibs (there's a lot of stuff here that's very effectively shared amongst kde applications, and some of it is necessary in order to ensure centralized handling of network protocols).

And some libraries seem to only get used by one program. Often this is because it doesn't make sense to have multiple programs: Example, an irc library. But linux software is usually designed around having a package manager to deal with these issues.
Linux has taken the high road here and it's a touch one. Obviously it's not going to be as easy to use, but the users seem to appreciate it nonetheless. And it's users whom you should cater to and not potential users if you're a respectable human being.

Azureus requires approx. 25-30 MBytes. I have Azureus running on occasion (usually helping out with torrents for *bsd or obscure linux-distributions). I have never had any kind of swap use with gentoo on a 1 GB RAM system. Reducing the ram to 512 MB changes the look though. Then the PC starts using something like 150-250 MB of swap space (I have 1.5 GB swap - and it is never used with 1 GB of ram).

Your system must be broken, or I am better at compiling applications then CentOS. Pick whatever answer you prefer (and I don't believe I'm better than the CentOS packagers).

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space...

Yes and no. Linux caches because it's much more effective than what windows does. And no it won't affect swapping because if linux needs more memory it takes it from the cached part which are oldest (afaik, I don't know the choice algorithm).

You are absolutely right. One of the keys of how Linux uses RAM can be summed up with the statement "Unused RAM is useless RAM". That is to say, if the RAM is just sitting there unused, then what good is it? Linux caches aggressively so that the system runs faster, putting items in the buffer cache so they don't need to be read from disk every time.

Naive Windows users think this means Linux "needs more RAM than Windows", but that's truly not the case. It doesn't "need" it, but it will use it if available to make the system run faster.

"linux don't need a lot ram, you can run a light windows manager like icewm with 16meg of ram "

In your imagination of RAM usage you thought that the problem would be the GNU part of Linux(KDE/GNOME/..), whereas the problem truly is from the applications that you will run on linux.

I would agree with this whole heartedly, at least to say. If you were to specifically choose all of your applications to be "light" on memory usage, then choosing a light window manager is worth while.

However, if you choose to use a light window manager, and then run Firefox, Evolution, Gaim, OpenOffice, on top of it, the memory use of the "modern" applications dwarf that of the window manager by so much, the choice is rendered redundant.

Linux applications tend to take more RAM than windows counterpart, even for the same application written by the same software developers.

I may be wrong, but I think one of the main reasons for this, is the fact that when running windows and Microsoft Application, a lot of the libraries that they require and data, are pre-loaded, and as such when you start the "application" be it word or any thing else, the memory foot print does not appear to change all that much. But that is not due to the application taking less ram, it is due to the information already being loaded.

Some may ask, "So What". My only real answer is "I'm a pedant"

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space, you can easily notice this on gnome-system-monitor in case of GNOME or ksysguard in case of KDE. I am currently running 4 applications on CentOS on 1GB RAM and 15% of swap space is already used, leaving performance of the system to hell. Solution will be to install more RAM.

I'm sorry but this is crap, in so far as...

Yes, Linux makes EXCELLENT use of the ram, and any thing that is unused will be used for file system caching. However my understanding is, that as soon as ram is required, file system cache will be dropped, and RAM will be provided. It does not force the use of swap.

That being said, I had noticed that with one of the FC Test releases, that over time ALL of my ram and SWAP was consumed. This was a bug/glitch some where.

A fresh builds with the final release does not echo this issue, and I am fairly certain that all final builds of just about any distro, will not do what you are describing.

I've been runing Evolution, Gaim, Open Office, Terminals, audio players, blah blah blah. And no swap is in use.

On 1 GB system Linux uses no swap space at all, while Windows uses several hundred megabytes of swap. At least that's the case for my system. And I'm even running eclipse, firefox, thunderbird, gaim and openoffice at the same time. No swap space is being used (but 69% of my ram works as cache, e.g. as RAM swap in stead of HDD swap - when more RAM is needed, the cache is reduced - I use no more than 28 kilobytes of swap

OTOH Linux uses a lot of ram for cache, but that's not a problem, since it's reduced as ram is needed by other applications. Linux only trashes the harddisk when you have very little ram, while Windows always trashes the hard disk

So basically I call bullshit on your post. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[quote]In your imagination of RAM usage you thought that the problem would be the GNU part of Linux(KDE/GNOME/..), whereas the problem truly is from the applications that you will run on linux. [/quote]

In my experience in running both Linux and Windows for years, this is simply not true.

As it should be with any OS. It's called security. Maybe, one day, msft users will understand. "

I have mentioned that because linux permissions are less than suitable for enterprises; thats why Redhat incorporated SELinux to its OS; namely to have ACLs.

And many linux distros didn't incorporate it yet.

">>4. Updating linux very carefully, as some updates change the kernel and render some device modules useless, unless you rebuild the module for 1000 PC by means of a deployment method<<

Same with windows. Upgrading to W2K broke all kinds of drivers etc. Even XP/SP2 broke all kinds of compatibility."

You said upgrading while I said updating; there is a difference Pal.
Applying updates to windows (lets assume XP with SP1) will not break any application unless you upgrade to SP2; but in linux even updating will break compatiblity (eg Ubuntu 6.10 with old kernel and ubuntu 6.10 with new kernel; and remember I am not talking about ubuntu v 7)

I have mentioned that because linux permissions are less than suitable for enterprises; thats why Redhat incorporated SELinux to its OS; namely to have ACLs.

SELinux is far more than Access Control Lists.

Every Linux has Access Control Lists.Only SELinux has mandatory ones which means a role or policy is mandatory,even root is effected by them.So if you don't make a proper policy you can easily make your system unusable.

Grsecurity is also much and much more than having suddenly *real* ACL's.

Well, I posted the news several days ago when it was published in Denmark (but nowhere else, apparently).

1) There are many stable distributions. However, they all have a few quirks of their own. Any mainstream distribution will do fine.

2) RAM upgrade isn't necessary. Linux with KDE or Gnome runs fine on older hardware. A new fullyfledged bloated Gnome desktop requires no more than XP with a few minor applications running. 256 MB of ram can do it. 1024 is better, but that's also something I recommend for XP and Win2K3 (512 MB is enough for Win2K).

3) Done mostly automatically. No more configuration needed than with Windows. Perhaps even less (depending on the applications).

4) Updating Linux (the kernel only?) is usually not a problem, but there is no reason for updating apart from security fixes. There is no need for worrying here.

Redhat is definitely a possibility, or perhaps Fedora if they have a good IT-department. There are others they can use, incl. gentoo (requires a wise deployment method - and it makes it difficult for ordinary users to install applications locally) or Ark Linux, Suse or Xandros.

Exactly the same way. Just about every Linux distro, and even the BSDs can be set up on a PXE boot station and loaded automatically. Some just require more work than others to get it up and running, but once it's set loading a 1000 PCs is a cake walk.

The simple answer is with LTSP. I don't know why people who use computers for office work don't go with thin client systems. I'm an IT person for a moderately large school division in saskatchewan and we have a rather large number of users using thin clients (mix between LTSP and Sunray).

"I don't know why people who use computers for office work don't go with thin client systems."

Hmmm... that would be a good solution. You'd have to do administration only on few computers and could add and remove workstation clients as you like.

The library of the university I once studied at had a Sun system with Ray clients. They were small, fast, silent, you could log in everywhere you wanted and still have all your files and settings. You could add local and central printers and had support for many hardware accessories (e. g. via USB). The system was running Solaris, of course. Linux already supports the modern Sun hardware platforms.

Did I mention they were silent? PC stuff usually is loud. Not good for work, neither at home.

So get rid of PCs and use thin clients where it makes sense. In the discussed case it surely does.

Make rpm your bitch. I'd set up my own rpmfind.net server in house with rpm2html, rpm all corporate software packages and just go old school on it. If I couldn't do kickstart I'd create custom iso's to slam it home no questions asked unattended.

Great. Then maybe this will have the "I wan't to run the same thing we have at work" effect, wich made Windows the dominant player not so many years ago...
(Because if you think windows was the better desktop OS back then, you are probably wrong.)

Guillotine was invented to give a less cruel death.
Maybe it failed, but later other things were invented like lethal injection and electric chair and they are even worse in terms of sufference inflicted.
And while guillotine isn't used anymore, the other are still used.

Are you saying that the French were the first to ever surrender? That's clearly false.

If you're claiming that the french invented the word surrender, that's not exactly true either. The word "surrender" was the English form of the French expression "se rendre", which means "to give oneself up".

For the rest, it's just a tired, inaccurate stereotype. The reason the French were forced to surrender during WWII was that they were ill-prepared for the Blitzkrieg, a new War tactic that had never been seen before. The French had mistakenly prepared for another trench war, like WWI, and were overrun by Germany's quick and powerful Panzer divisions.

Prior to WWII, the French were a military force to be reckoned with. They held their own during WWI, and I'm quite certain you're familiar with a certain Napoleon Bonaparte...

If you're going to claim "historical accuracy", perhaps you should actually learn some history first.

Hey, look at that, you just got your tush handed out to you by a Frenchman...I guess that'll teach you to try talking military history with someone who actually studied the subject in college...

I guess the question now is: are you ready to surrender, or shall I punish you some more? :-)

Rubbish, most people do not even know what Windows is or any other operating system for that matter. They assume it is part of or is the computer. That is all they know.
It's what everyone else is using and it's what comes with the computer. The are not aware of the economics involved. To them it is like the control panel on their DVD player. And trust me, even though dealing with end users is not my job but as an IT professional I am the de facto tech support for friends and family. So trust me they don't even know what it is let alone want it.

They would learn about Wine, CrossOver Office, and Cedega and how they allow you to run thousands of Windows applications and games. For those who dont like paying, the last two could possibly be found illegally with some googling.

They would also learn about the open-source and even commercial alternatives that replace their Windows counterparts.

Example:

Gimp (FOSS), Pixel (Commercial), Photoshop (Windows)

All three will run on Linux. But Pixel could easily replace Gimp and/or Photoshop as a low-cost Photoshop clone that runs natively on Linux.

Bah, that's pointless. As inflammatory and incorrect as most of his posts are I'm pretty sure he's capable of getting around an IP address ban.
The only way to deal with guys like this (whatever side they're on) is to ignore them or refute them with undeniable fact.

Edit:
Also, don't vote these guys down just because of who they are. NotParker for example has, quite amazingly, made some posts that are in no way off-topic or inflammatory but still are voted down. Not being pro-GPL is not in itself a reason for being modded down and being pro-gpl is not in itself a reason for being modding up.

//Also, don't vote these guys down just because of who they are. NotParker for example has, quite amazingly, made some posts that are in no way off-topic or inflammatory but still are voted down. Not being pro-GPL is not in itself a reason for being modded down and being pro-gpl is not in itself a reason for being modding up. //

Agree with this. A very few of the things that NotParker says in postings are actually accurate.

That makes it triply annoying about the other 95% of his points that are utterly false.

Given the quantity, repetition, falsity and noise level of his postings, it is pointless to respond.

One of the failings of the ideal of "freedom of speech", I suppose, is that it also allows "freedom to confuse and spread disinformation".

That makes it triply annoying about the other 95% of his points that are utterly false.

You shouldn't tell lies. Nothing I've said has been proven to be false.

Its kind of pathetic you should say that without any kind of references.

Just because you think Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat are involved in some sort of giant conspiracy to try and depress OSS supporters by pointing out the market share of Linux is trivial doesn't make it true.

//Just because you think Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat are involved in some sort of giant conspiracy to try and depress OSS supporters by pointing out the market share of Linux is trivial doesn't make it true.//

The "market share" of any number of zero cost items is zero. That is a mathematical fact.

I have no view one way or another about Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat and whatever.

I find it a shame that a company like Microsoft can manipulate the alleged "free market" in America via political lobbying to the point where most PC suppliers are forced into offering only Windows. At one point I have heard (I don't know if it still applies), Microsoft managed to make it illegal in America to sell a PC without an OS pre-installed, and they also managed to make it so that Linux did not count as an OS under that regulation! If Linux is not an OS, exactly what is it?

I find it amusing that a company like Microsoft can, in the so-called "land of the free" and "home of capitalism", get so very close to making it illegal to compete against it in the software market. I find it amazing that Microsoft are able to control the public perceptions so much that in the mind of the public, apparently "the PC" and "Windows" are one and the same. I find it equally amazing that Microsoft are able to control the media to the extent that when the media report on malware, viruses and other security threats and hazards such as Internet banking, they are able to get the media to talk in terms of "lack of security of PCs" and not in terms of "the failings of Microsoft Windows".

It is even more amusing when Microsoft makes PR noises about "improving interoperability" when the largest development efforts of the company are directed at making its products deliberately obscure and not interoperable.

None of this has anything to do with rational choices about which software one should run, however.

More and more institutions and companies will see through the FUD and liberate themselves from Microsoft, perhaps in a similar vein to Ernie Ball's experience, or perhaps like the french National Assembly, or perhaps they will do it quietly without any fanfare at all and no visibility to any of the figures from Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat.

In a while, sooner or later, the effect will build momentum and become unstoppable, like a snowball rolling down a hill.

It seems to me that the Computer-User world is divided into two basic camps -- those smart enough to take control of how their machines operate and those that don't care about such things. I prefer to use any OS other than Windows, so that I have complete control of my computers. That being said, there will always be those that just want their computer to work without having to fiddle with it, just as their are people that don't work on their own automobiles -- Deal with it!(TM)